Nepal yesterday moved to ban the online game PlayerUnkown's Battlegrounds, citing negative impact of the game on children and their development. Citing violent content and its effect as the primordial reason for the ban, Sandip Adhikari, deputy director at Nepal Telecommunications Authority (NTA), the nation's telecoms regulator, told Reuters that ""We have ordered the ban on PUBG because it is addictive to children and teenagers."
As part of the ban, all internet service providers, mobile operators and network service providers were instructed to block streaming of the game. Gamers might find ways to circumvent this limitation in order to still be able to play the game; or they'll simply migrate to one of the other Battle Royale games on offer, such as Fortnite or Apex Legends, instead. It's interesting to wonder whether the government of Nepal will keep on chasing the next online game fad one by one or if actual studies on the negative impact of these games are fielded by the Nepalese government.
57 Comments on Nepal Bans PUBG on Account of Negative Impact on Children
Anyway, I only allowed SNES and N64 games for my son but he also played GoldenEye 007. It didn't seem like a big deal. He grew up fine just like most other people.
I'm of the opinion that children severely affected by violence in video games probably have underlying mental issues that need to be addressed to begin with.
PUBG is just one of the more recent video games of the genre: why have Nepal banned this game but not others within the genre? Is this game over-the-top as far as violence is concerned? I haven't played it myself, so dunno.
Also, boomers just won't die. They didn't have vidya games and neither should you!
Can see where you're coming from with that, I have a daughter and when she gets of the age to start understanding these things, I'm sure there is a battle for me too. I hope I'll use a good approach for it. Can't predict it I think how that'll turn out.
But there are temptations in the lives of all kids (and adults...). I had them too, and they weren't that different either. Its still down entirely to good parenting, ban or not. Alcohol is a great example. The US tried banning alcohol once, that didn't really work out too well for them. And these bans are about as fruitless, most notably because with gaming its even harder to see the potential harm than with a thing like alcohol. Its a long term problem and the moment you ban one game or genre, a new one pops up and you'll always be following the music.
I believe much more in good parenting than I do in banning everything. Restrictions on age and access are fine in my book, bans are most certainly always counterproductive, especially when it comes to drink, drugs and entertainment. Much rather would I prefer good/responsible citizenship and parenting combined with a great degree of freedom AND age restrictions. It sends the right message: you can do what you please, but we set some boundaries with each other on the when and the how. I also believe that alongside that you should have a system of strong penalties for disobeying those restrictions.
Other question is why PUBG. Maybe because F2P so very low barrier of entry is certainly one aspect of it. But I think more so than the violent aspect, its the addiction it so easily supports. Its also about the psychological tricks employed in games to keep you playing. A bit similar to the lootbox/gambling or not-discussion. It most certainly has the same incentives gambling has.
We limit the driving speed limit for everyone on the road to the lowest denominator, the least skilled drivers. We limit the age of buying drinks to 21 years (or 18 years), regardless of the person actual maturity level. Some countries ban everyone from owning personal guns/weapons, just because there might be some nutjobs. Heck in some countries you can't even own a pepper spray!
It's a balance between technology and costs for that specific society. Probably Nepal decided that instead of building a special system for the few adults that play that game, it's simpler and less costly for them just to ban it for everyone. They have the politicians listening to their constituents. Or not...
Socialism is an entirely different animal and simply describes a state with a high level of social services, ie most of the EU.
But this isn't politics so I won't go on further about that. The issue is, in Nepal, it's likely being decided by the more authoritarian side of the government rather than genuine studies and/or civic interaction.
Also, parenting... it's hard when you have to work to pay the bills and don't have time to really be sitting in a chair behind your kid and be a watch dog for everything that your kid does online.
I can afford to pay yearly for something like Qustodio, but average Nepal family I'm sure it can't.
Related... maybe:
www.breitbart.com/faith/2019/04/13/pope-francis-warns-students-of-addictions-to-cell-phone-use/
"Who are you to tell me how to do my thing, that I know how to do better than anyone else?"
This is not the 70's when you can whip your belt and start swinging. The "you are grounded, can't go out" doesn't work because kids don't get out of their rooms anyway, bikes are rusting in the sheds.
I even got to the point that, for punishments, I lock the phone in the safe, and I face the meltdown that follows, confronted with accusations of "this is child abuse". It's like living with an addict going "cold turkey".
Another little secret: Apple also doesn't collaborate with parental controls software, like Android and Windows, so that's why all the kids want iPhones... Sure they claim they do, but parents HAVE to have iPhones too, and their parental controls are laughable.
We have clinics for chemical addictions, but not for this new kind addiction. Other parents don't have the mental energy to do that on daily basis, they just gave up and this is interpreted as "freedom", like a meth addict being "free" to use as much meth as he wants. Parents are just not qualified to treat the addiction at the level that "social media" apps and games are designed to do damage. They have professional psychologists hired to design the maximum addiction into the games/apps.
A government ban is much easier to be dealt with, directs the anger towards somebody else. Personally, if I ban instagram, facebook, snapchat at WiFi level, I just find out that my family data plan gets used more ;). I would like to have the option to ban those at cell network level too, but that needs government help.
We, as a country, are raising a generation of addicts.
Blaming the parents for the drugs dealers bring daily in the schools and even inside the house is just stupid.
I think I grew up fine in this era... I really don't see the harm, and even if there is harm, I cannot agree the protection of children completely trump the rights of adults. There has to be some level of expected control over your children no matter how stressful it may be.
And frankly, comparing a digital addiction to someone who is actually addicted to amphetamines is more than a bit over the top.
If you wanna do what's right for the kids keep them away from Religion and Social Media but by all means let them game.
Social media is a different animal. For them that's reality. An alternate reality.
What the Nepal government has done solves nothing. It's the wrong solution for the problem at hand.